[snofox]

Easy! Show all the enthusiasm due to the proud owner of a new camera.


Steve

HEAR HEAR! The enthusiastic guy with the all-purpose zoom was me years ago. My first dSLR, a k200D with a DA 18-250 lens on it! I was in heaven, and took it to show off to my new camera club members (mostly Canon and Nikon types) and they patiently examined my camera and commented on how beautiful it was and how I made a good choice... nothing but words of encouragement and support. I think probably this person wasn't a "Canikon fanboy" being aggressive with his particular brand choice... he was just thrilled with his gear and was probably sharing his enthusiasm.

I have since learned that the brand on the gear doesn't mean much. All are capable of producing photos that are works of art. And for what it's worth, the best photo I ever took was with the DA 18-250. It isn't super sharp, and it's a bit noisy, but it captures the sheer emotion shared by a woman and her Arabian horse. A lucky shot for sure. But it just goes to show you.

And not all Canon types are smelly, you know.

[Rondec]

Oooh, umm. . . Really?

To me a K-3 + 18-135mm seems rather big, heavy, expensive, and over-specified for a travel camera -- unless your idea of "travel" is a NatGeo expedition through the Congo or the Kalahari. That's not what comes to mind, for me, as a family vacation camera, to take on a road trip or a cruise.

For most people today, their travel camera is their smartphone -- and it will actually work pretty well within its natural limits: good light, no fast action, fixed focal length. The next big step up would be something like a Canon PowerShot G16 with optical zoom, 12 FPS burst, and OVF, and it will still fit in your pocket.

We've had some people predicting the demise of the DSLR. I don't think it's going away, but I do think the DSLR is the new medium format. They've become as big and heavy as medium format film cameras, and the only people who really need one are the pros who used to shoot 6X6cm or 6X7cm film every day. I suspect mirrorless system cameras (MILC / CSC / EVIL / whatever) will inherit the legacy of the 35mm SLR for amateurs and hobbyists. Pros will look down on them with disdain, while the phone-wielding masses are intimidated by their price and complexity.

I imagine it depends on what image quality you are satisfied with. I just haven't been that satisfied with either phone camera images (other than for snaps posted to social media) or, point and shoot images (I haven't really used a bridge camera).

I carry a lot of photo gear on a vacation because of that. Basically cameras break down into pocketable (phone/point and shoot) and not pocketable (require some additional bag to carry). A K-S1 with a DA prime is probably as small as any mirrorless option out there, but certainly it is the lens that will add bulk in all of these situations -- even to mirrorless options.

I think news of the demise of the SLR is overstated. There are still plenty of folks who want better image quality than their phones offer and are willing to carry a small camera bag with them if that is what it takes to get the photos of their kids that they want.

[Tony Belding]

I carry a lot of photo gear on a vacation because of that. Basically cameras break down into pocketable (phone/point and shoot) and not pocketable (require some additional bag to carry).

It's the size of the bag that I'm really referring to here. IMHO, this matters. The size-and-weight of the bag and the number of lenses you can easily carry varies greatly depending on whether your camera is a Q, a M4/3, or a full-on DSLR.

There are still plenty of folks who want better image quality than their phones offer and are willing to carry a small camera bag with them if that is what it takes to get the photos of their kids that they want.

The key word there is "small" camera bag. A DSLR is roughly comparable in size to a medium format TLR from the 1950s. Those cameras were dethroned by the smaller and more versatile 35mm SLR. I'm questioning whether we care much less about size and portability in the 21st Century than we did in the 1960s and 1970s when the SLR tide swept in. (I guess the cynical answer might be that now we all have big SUVs to haul our fat camera bags around?)

[Rondec]

It's the size of the bag that I'm really referring to here. IMHO, this matters. The size-and-weight of the bag and the number of lenses you can easily carry varies greatly depending on whether your camera is a Q, a M4/3, or a full-on DSLR.



The key word there is "small" camera bag. A DSLR is roughly comparable in size to a medium format TLR from the 1950s. Those cameras were dethroned by the smaller and more versatile 35mm SLR. I'm questioning whether we care much less about size and portability in the 21st Century than we did in the 1960s and 1970s when the SLR tide swept in. (I guess the cynical answer might be that now we all have big SUVs to haul our fat camera bags around?)

The size of your bag depends much more on the number of and speed of the lenses you carry. Full frame proponents have made this point for years, but smaller sensors have small lenses often just because they are significantly slower from an equivalency stand point.

Way too many people focus on camera bodies and not enough on lenses. If you want small, you can find it in about any format, but whether or not the lenses will keep up is another story.

[pathdoc]

One of the things which occasionally tempts me to go back and play with film again is knowing just how small an all-manual film SLR with a standard prime on it can be. IIRC Pentax and Olympus were the major contenders for the world record there. But finding somewhere that'll do a decent job of processing is an issue (my local Wal-Mart wound up its film processing side just a few months ago).

All those electronics in DSLRs plus room for the batteries are volume-hungry. The issue in duplicating the old-school smallness would be in finding ways to package the innards appropriately. How many people here would sacrifice the back screen and autofocus and go to a minimal set of modes, with image review handed off to a cellphone via a plug-in SD-card adapter and image-reading app, if it meant being able to convert your film SLR to digital in some strange fashion?

[Tony Belding]

One of the things which occasionally tempts me to go back and play with film again is knowing just how small an all-manual film SLR with a standard prime on it can be.

Case in point:

How many people here would sacrifice the back screen and autofocus and go to a minimal set of modes, with image review handed off to a cellphone via a plug-in SD-card adapter and image-reading app, if it meant being able to convert your film SLR to digital in some strange fashion?

Despite my own feelings of nostalgia for SLRs like the above, I don't think we need to revisit the 1980s. I've become an EVF believer, and I hope Pentax will eventually get on board with that technology in some way.

[LaurenOE]

We all know nothing at the beginning.

Unless we are named "Jon Snow", then we know nothing.

[Rondec]

One of the things which occasionally tempts me to go back and play with film again is knowing just how small an all-manual film SLR with a standard prime on it can be. IIRC Pentax and Olympus were the major contenders for the world record there. But finding somewhere that'll do a decent job of processing is an issue (my local Wal-Mart wound up its film processing side just a few months ago).

All those electronics in DSLRs plus room for the batteries are volume-hungry. The issue in duplicating the old-school smallness would be in finding ways to package the innards appropriately. How many people here would sacrifice the back screen and autofocus and go to a minimal set of modes, with image review handed off to a cellphone via a plug-in SD-card adapter and image-reading app, if it meant being able to convert your film SLR to digital in some strange fashion?

I shoot film some and I am more than willing to have a bigger camera in order to have a decent sized screen on the back for reviewing images, the ability to change iso on the fly and all of the other things that you can do with digital that you couldn't do with film. The auto focus really isn't the big issue, it is everything else that is missing that makes shooting film more of an aggravation for me.

[pepperberry farm]

How many people here would sacrifice the back screen and autofocus and go to a minimal set of modes, with image review handed off to a cellphone via a plug-in SD-card adapter and image-reading app, if it meant being able to convert your film SLR to digital in some strange fashion?

I rarely use the back screen - occasionally, I use it to review shots on the SD card, but that's it.... that's why the articulating screen isn't a big deal for me....

but - I do want auto-focus and the optical viewfinder....

[mohb]

One of the things which occasionally tempts me to go back and play with film again is knowing just how small an all-manual film SLR with a standard prime on it can be.

If you added a grip to the old film cameras they would be bigger, but lighter, than a Kx

[pathdoc]

Rondec, I completely agree; I like all those things too, and am willing to pay the appropriate price. Quick image review (for gross unwanted blur, under- or over-exposure, unplanned crops of people's heads, unintentional upskirts etc.) and ISO shift are the two big godsends of the digital age, but it seems to me that almost everything else - at least with regard to control of focus, shutter speed and aperture - has been with us for quite a while or could be applied just as easily to a film camera.

ETA: mohb, your pic got posted before I finished my reply. That's an interesting side by side comparison. The body of the DSLR is still definitely bulkier and of higher volume, even if the maximum dimensions with the lens in place are similar. That's why the old film SLRs seem smaller. From the body-only perspective, they are. Put the typical out-the-door-of-the-store lens on them, though, and put them in a hypothetical box that touches in all three dimensions, and that changes things.

[mohb]

ETA: mohb, your pic got posted before I finished my reply. That's an interesting side by side comparison. The body of the DSLR is still definitely bulkier and of higher volume, even if the maximum dimensions with the lens in place are simila

I've just compared my K5II against my Yashica 230 (a metal chassis and AF) and in total volume there doesn't seem much difference but the difference in weight is considerable. Even the smaller and plastic Kx is a lot heavier than the Yashica - perhaps it's the weight that makes the DSLR seem larger than they are compared with the old cameras.
I run a film through my old cameras when I get them them they become 'museum' pieces, I am definitely a digital man.

[stevebrot]

Case in point:

Oh, yeah...I have two working XR7 on my shelf and both are a pleasure in the hand and very fast to shoot with even with manual film advance. It might also mention that the XR7 also has a cast alloy metal chassis that was above the norm for the day.


Steve

[magkelly]

"Heavy" is why I've got M43 cameras and Q. I love my DSLR's and would not work with anything else, but when I'm running around sightseeing or doing daily stuff I can't be lugging a DSLR and a tripod around all day. I've got autoimmune issues and a lot of very painful arthritis. I can faint just from being outside in the heat if I am for too long. Adding pounds of gear only compounds that problem. I only take the DSLR's when I know I am going to need them when I don't think the smaller sensors can cope with what I'm likely to photograph that day. Mostly I save them for serious work.

I took a DSLR and a longer zoom and kit lens to the zoo in San Francisco when the weather was a lot cooler than it is here now. Big mistake. It was pretty hard lugging it all day. Next time I go to someplace like that I am totally taking one of the M43 kits and/or maybe the Q with the Auto 110 primes. The M43 kit I have a long zoom so that is better, but I might just take the Q too, for fun. I can carry both kits and it still doesn't weigh half of what my K-30 or K5II kits do. It's a lot easier on me. It doesn't mean I don't love my DSLR's, I do, but the little cameras they can be a total godsend in terms of not making myself sick...

[Wired]

Right tool for the right job.

I often get mocked from people in my community for using a Pentax. It's playful mocking because I'm different. Heck the Canon guys make fun of me when I'm using my Nikon too. But at the end of the day no one makes a bad camera or a bad lens. I've seen people with a K100D and 2 lens kit making images that blow my mind. I've seen guys with medium format take glorified snap shots.

what matters is who's behind the viewfinder and how comfortable they are with the camera they are holding. I'll never buy a Canon because I'm not comfortable with the system for example.